There was no room for a barf alert in the title.
Notice that the author did not provide any proof about a law being passed in 1790 making it a mandate that Shipowners had to provide health insurance for their sailors. Like a typical liberal he pulled the lie out of his derriere and expects others to buy the lie hook line and sinker
1 posted on
04/14/2012 6:57:19 PM PDT by
Kaslin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-37 next last
To: Kaslin
When will these losers realizes that this gig is up. They lost.
Then again a reality check for liberals often requires a 2X4 to their head...repeat if necessary.
![](http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b64/darkwing104/darkwing1.gif)
2 posted on
04/14/2012 7:02:49 PM PDT by
darkwing104
(Let's get dangerous)
To: Kaslin
O.K., so let’s pass a law again mandating that EVERY adult citizen not convicted of a felony buy a firearm (not just men, right?). Let’s see if this liberal pussy is in favor of that.
3 posted on
04/14/2012 7:03:36 PM PDT by
Lysandru
To: Kaslin
My BS meter peg so hard it broke ...
4 posted on
04/14/2012 7:03:54 PM PDT by
doc1019
(Romney will never get my vote!)
To: Kaslin
Medical insurance around in 1790? Who knew?
To: Kaslin
My understanding is that such a mandate was law.
Still, sailors were already involved in commerce. There was no requirement for people to be come sailors, so that their commerce could be regulated.
7 posted on
04/14/2012 7:05:21 PM PDT by
donmeaker
(Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
To: Kaslin
8 posted on
04/14/2012 7:07:43 PM PDT by
sayfer bullets
("...and if it stops moving, subsidize it." - RR)
To: Kaslin
9 posted on
04/14/2012 7:08:16 PM PDT by
gusopol3
To: Kaslin
The two ‘insurance’ laws were actually requirements that ships keep doctors and provide service to the crew. This is because all ships were involved to some degree in the Barbary war but could also be conscripted into the service of the States and thus were considered a potential military naval asset.
The requirement of owning a gun was a wartime law establishing a militia.
Neither of these laws are even close to the ‘mandate’ of health insurance. Both were part of national defense issues, not commerce.
11 posted on
04/14/2012 7:09:03 PM PDT by
mnehring
To: Kaslin
nothing in the text or history of the Constitutions Commerce Clause indicates that Congress cannot mandate commercial purchases.
Surely Elhauge is sufficiently educated to know that what the Constitution permits is explicit or clearly implied in the documents language, and that what is left out is explicitly prohibited.
Why, then, his coyness?
We must think it is because he wishes government to be given powers which it has no right to assert.
12 posted on
04/14/2012 7:09:36 PM PDT by
YHAOS
(you betcha!)
To: Kaslin
Utter nonsense.
Courts have long confirmed that Congress has the general power to determine United States maritime law. The power of Congress to pass laws relating to seaman or other matters relating to maritime jurisdition is not dependent on the interstate commerce clause. Even so, shipping on the high seas can be covered under the foreign or interstate commerce clause by the very nature of the activity.
Congress has explicit power over the organizing and arming of the militia under the Constitution.
These examples the author cites have no legal relevance to the question of the constitutionality of ObamaCare under the interstate commerce clause.
To: Kaslin
Wow. I don’t even know where to start with this one.
17 posted on
04/14/2012 7:18:59 PM PDT by
Not A Snowbird
(Never borrow batteries out of your smoke alarm!)
To: Kaslin
So, if you own a car, you must carry insurance. And if you own a commercial boat you must carry insurance? Obama’s law requires that you carry health insurance if your heart beats. This guys argument doesn’t apply. Really though, I believe this is only more evidence that liberals try to find any reason to talk about seamen and poop decks...
21 posted on
04/14/2012 7:21:00 PM PDT by
JohnRand
To: Kaslin
These mandates are not for the employees, but for the employers...and in that regard are more akin to workers comp insurance than regular health insurance. As such, it sounds more like the current U.S. Federal Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act (USL&H), which requires employers to provide coverage for employees on navigable waterways that wouldn't fall under the worker's comp jurisdiction of a specific state.
22 posted on
04/14/2012 7:22:06 PM PDT by
Joe 6-pack
(Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
To: Kaslin
These people had the country handed to them I guess we should expect condescention....
23 posted on
04/14/2012 7:25:17 PM PDT by
Tzimisce
(THIS SUCKS)
To: Kaslin
The obvious lie is that the concept of health insurance was not created until the 1930s. In 1798 there really weren't any hospitals in the modern context and drugs were often compounded by the physician or an apothecary for the physician. Again the concept of health insurance covering medications wasn't common until the 1970s.
To: Kaslin
Let’s see:
Ships= Commerce
Breathing= Not Commerce
Simple.
26 posted on
04/14/2012 7:32:44 PM PDT by
Idaho_Cowboy
(Well they dare not call us invaders, 'Tis but state rights and liberty we ask; -Civil War Song)
To: Kaslin
First of all, ships carried thier own doctors, for obvious economic reasons. You lose the crew, you lose the ship.
Health insurance began in the US during the civil war, and didn't become widely used till the second world war.
27 posted on
04/14/2012 7:34:07 PM PDT by
D Rider
To: Kaslin
Is this a parody?
It is so hard to tell these days
28 posted on
04/14/2012 7:34:16 PM PDT by
GeronL
(The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
To: Kaslin
This is called the “grasping at straws” approach for liberal arguments.
The stupid is strong with this idiot.
31 posted on
04/14/2012 7:36:38 PM PDT by
princeofdarkness
(The Obama Administration is circling the wagons. But the Truth Indians are using flaming arrows.)
To: Kaslin
First congress legislation:
Session 1
- June 1, 1789: An act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, ch. 1, 1 Stat. 23
- July 4, 1789: Hamilton Tariff, ch. 2, 1 Stat. 24
- July 27, 1789: United States Department of State, was established, originally named the Department of Foreign Affairs, ch. 4, 1 Stat. 28.
- July 31, 1789. Regulation of the Collection of Duties on Tonnage and Merchandise, ch.5, 1 Stat. 29.
- August 7, 1789: Department of War was established, ch. 7, 1 Stat. 49.
- September 2, 1789: United States Department of the Treasury was established, ch. 12, 1 Stat. 65
- September 24, 1789: Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, which created: § 1: Supreme Court, 1 Stat. 73 § 3: District courts, 1 Stat. 73 § 4: Circuit courts, 1 Stat. 73 § 35: District attorneys, 1 Stat. 92 and Attorney General, 1 Stat. 93
]Session 2
- March 1, 1790: Made provisions for the first Census, ch. 2, 1 Stat. 101
- March 26, 1790: Naturalization Act of 1790, ch. 3, 1 Stat. 103
- April 10, 1790: Patent Act of 1790, ch. 7, 1 Stat. 109
- May 31, 1790: Copyright Act of 1790, ch. 15, 1 Stat. 124
- July 6, 1790: Residence Act, ch. 28, 1 Stat. 130, established Washington, D.C. as the seat of government of the United States.
- July 22, 1790: Indian Intercourse Act of 1790, ch. 33, 1 Stat. 137, regulated commerce with the Indian tribes.
Session 3
- February 25, 1791: First Bank of the United States, ch. 10, 1 Stat. 191
- March 3, 1791: Whiskey Act, ch. 15, 1 Stat. 199, which triggered the Whiskey Rebellion
34 posted on
04/14/2012 7:46:02 PM PDT by
central_va
( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-37 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson